In a significant legal clarification, Justice Zafeer Ahmad of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that a prior refusal of judicial remand does not restrict an investigating officer from conducting further probe and submitting a charge-sheet, nor does it prevent a trial court from taking cognizance. The court clarified that judicial remand and taking cognizance are distinct stages of criminal proceedings serving completely different purposes. This observation came as the High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a trial court’s summoning order under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Background of the Dispute
The appeal was filed by the appellant, Adeem Ali, seeking to set aside a summoning order dated March 25, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, in Special Trial No. 28 of 2026. The trial court’s order arose from Case Crime No. 833 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali Sadar in Lakhimpur Kheri district. The appellant was summoned to face trial for offences under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The core dispute rested on the fact that on October 29, 2025, the same trial court had refused to grant judicial remand of the appellant for these very offences.
Arguments Presented by the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court’s summoning order was “cryptic and non-speaking,” showing a complete lack of judicial mind. It was contended that the Investigating Officer had no authority to add offences for which judicial remand had already been declined. The appellant’s counsel claimed that the officer recorded the statements of two witnesses merely to circumvent and frustrate the court’s earlier order. Furthermore, it was argued that a bare reading of the First Information Report (FIR) and the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, did not establish that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
In support of these submissions, the appellant relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Sonu v. State of U.P. (2021), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020).
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) opposed the appeal. The A.G.A. submitted that the Investigating Officer had lawfully recorded witness statements during the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet based on the evidence gathered. The state counsel asserted that the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction while taking cognizance and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) to support the summoning order.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court meticulously analyzed the distinct legal nature of “cognizance” and “summoning” under the BNSS, 2023. Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed that while taking cognizance, a court is not required to carry out a detailed evaluation of the evidence or decide on the defense’s arguments. Its role is limited to checking whether the materials prima facie show that an offence was committed.
Referring to the Bhushan Kumar precedent, the Court pointed out that a summoning order does not need separate or detailed reasons as long as it is clear that the magistrate applied their mind to the police report and materials. Reviewing the trial court’s order, the High Court noted:
“Merely because the order is concise or does not contain an elaborate discussion of each piece of evidence cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that it has been passed without application of judicial mind. At the stage of taking cognizance, a detailed evaluation of the evidence is neither contemplated nor permissible.”
Addressing the appellant’s primary contention—that the refusal of judicial remand barred any further prosecution under those sections—the Court flatly rejected the argument, stating:
“An order refusing judicial remand is passed at a distinct stage of the criminal proceedings and serves a purpose entirely different from an order taking cognizance. Such an order neither amounts to an adjudication upon the legality of the investigation nor operates as a judicial determination that the offences in question are not made out. It certainly does not curtail the statutory authority of the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation, collect further material and submit an appropriate police report under the provisions of the BNSS, 2023.”
The Court also addressed the precedents cited by the appellant. It noted that the principles established in Hitesh Verma (requiring proof that the insult occurred in public view because of the victim’s caste) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (establishing that a promise of marriage must be false at its inception) are factual determinations that must be tested during the trial. They cannot be decided at the initial stage of taking cognizance. Similarly, the Court ruled that whether the victim’s caste status was clearly disclosed in the FIR is a matter of sufficiency of evidence to be resolved during the trial.
Final Decision
Finding no legal error or infirmity in the trial court’s order dated March 25, 2026, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal at the admission stage. The Court added that its observations are not to be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial court must proceed with the trial independently.
Case Details
Case Title: Adeem Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1258 of 2026
Bench: Justice Zafeer Ahmad
Date: July 15, 2026
